Stark v. McClosky

City of New York Municipal Court

Stark v. McClosky

2 N.Y.S. 737, 19 N.Y. St. Rep. 110, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 770

DecidedNovember 30, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y.S. 737 (Stark v. McClosky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stark v. McClosky, 2 N.Y.S. 737, 19 N.Y. St. Rep. 110, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 770 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Browne, J.

The action is for a balance claimed to be due for goods sold and delivered. The answer put in issue every allegation of the complaint. An issue in the case was whether the contract of sale was in fact made with plaintiff in his individual capacity or as the representative of the Central Moulding & Lumber Company. The defendant requested to be permitted to give testimony showing that the plaintiff was the manager of the company at the time of the transaction referred to in the complaint, and that the transaction was in fact one with the company; and that, if there was any liability on the part of the defendant, (which is denied, the defendant claiming payment,) it was to the company. The justice declined to receive the evidence. The defendant thereupon excepted.

The ruling was error. The exception w7ill be sustained; the verdict in favor of the plaintiff will be set aside; and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

McAdah, C. J., and Ehrlich, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Browne, J.

The action is for a balance claimed to be due for goods sold and delivered. The answer put in issue every allegation of the complaint. An issue in the case was whether the contract of sale was in fact made with plaintiff in his individual capacity or as the representative of the Central Moulding & Lumber Company. The defendant requested to be permitted to give testimony showing that the plaintiff was the manager of the company at the time of the transaction referred to in the complaint, and that the transaction was in fact one with the company; and that, if there was any liability on the part of the defendant, (which is denied, the defendant claiming payment,) it was to the company. The justice declined to receive the evidence. The defendant thereupon excepted.

The ruling was error. The exception w7ill be sustained; the verdict in favor of the plaintiff will be set aside; and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

McAdah, C. J., and Ehrlich, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y.S. 737, 19 N.Y. St. Rep. 110, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stark-v-mcclosky-nynyccityct-1888.